🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4/10/07 8:41 PM, in article
1176255716.937373.226460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "mh"
<hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 10, 8:26 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
> wrote:
>> pitchforks and torches wrote:
>>> "mh" <hobrats...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1176249439.450633.177840@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> 
>>>> On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> "Bill Carter" <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>> 
>>>>> news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> 
>>>>>> charliekilo wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>> "bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> 
>>>>>>>> Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>> Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>>>>>>>>> He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin'
>>>>>>>>> cold
>>>>>>>>> water on the GW hysteria...
>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
>>>>>>>> The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
>>>>>>>> This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>> 
>>>>>>> Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also
>>>>>>> include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>> 
>>>>>>> Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes
>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> from prominent scientists):
>>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.st...
>>>>>>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
>>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
>>>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>> 
>>>>>> It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this
>>>>>> thread
>>>>>> to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
>>>>>> suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
>>>>>> statements of fact.
>> 
>>>>> Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based
>>>>> on
>>>>> science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical
>>>>> proof.
>>>>> Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame
>>>>> the
>>>>> U.S..
>> 
>>>> Ya know, one can accept that humans are one of the primary
>>>> contributors to global climate change via CO2 emissions and not blame
>>>> the U.S. solely.
>> 
>>>> While it is true that the U.S.'s per-capita CO2 emissions are the
>>>> largest, the problem is only going to get worse as China and other
>>>> countries increase their emissions.
>> 
>>>> Thing is, there's not much we can do about those other countries; we
>>>> can find ways to reduce our emissions. Who knows, maybe in doing so,
>>>> we'll come up with new products and industries that those countries
>>>> will then buy from us.
>> 
>>>> Remember the problem with the ozone hole? It was blamed on CFCs. The
>>>> U.S. led the way in replacing those CFCs with other compounds. It's a
>>>> strategy that appears to have worked -- despite the doom and gloom
>>>> from naysers who predicted all sorts of economic woe if we tried to
>>>> get rid of CFCs.
>> 
>>>> Also, you might want to re-examine your requirement that every
>>>> scientist be able to prove global warming via mathematical proof.
>> 
>>>> Proof requires a demonstration that in every instance, a theory or
>>>> physical law yields the same results. That's impossible. Consider
>>>> Newtonian physics -- we haven't measured the motion of every single
>>>> object in the universe and shown that they all obey the Second Law.
>>>> What science has done is take a large statistical sample of and shown
>>>> that Newton's Second Las is consistently obeyed by objects in our
>>>> universe. That does not constitute proof - merely statistical
>>>> likelihood.
>> 
>>>> If even Newton's laws can't be proven, then surely no other scientific
>>>> theory is provable. The same holds for global warming.
>> 
>>> A 'Tip'O'th'Mallet' to ya, sir. Good post....well reasoned, and well stated.
>>> Carry on....
>> 
>> ...and full of shit!
>> 
>> JT
> 
> 
> Such well-reasoned debate tactics. It's not wonder you have the awe
> and respect of ... um ... .
> 
No debate necessary. It is the truth that it is full of shit.
Pure unadulterated feces waste...


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----